For Barack Obama, it was strike two. And this one was a right-down-the-middle question from a YouTuber in Monday night's South Carolina debate:

"Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?"

"I would," responded Obama.

His explanation dug him even deeper: "The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous."

From the Nation magazine's David Corn to superblogger Mickey Kaus, a near-audible gasp. For Hillary Clinton, next in line at the debate, an unmissable opportunity.

She pounced: "I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year." And she then proceeded to give the reasons any graduate student could tick off: You don't want to be used for their propaganda. You need to know their intentions. Such meetings can make the situation worse.

What does the Hildabeast think the Iranians and Syrians will say to her after she has just finished putting her tail between her legs and running ? This is Presidential ? How come no one points out what she said 3 months ago , Just the opposite! How about if I knew then what I know now I would have done it different ! Wow what leadership !

I don't think it was a gaffe. His base believes in what he said, and his support will increase because of it.

That having been said, all the Democrats, Obama included, have a big problem, which is that Hillary has enough support to win today, and none of her supporters are going to change their minds, no matter what.

The “magic muzzie” got caught with his bag of tricks visible to the audience. He was shown to be a cheap manipulating illusionist, not the “magic ticket” to a new leftist world order. What an empty suit for a pant full!

Why is it a "gaffe"? A gaffe is a social error. Didn't he say what he meant? Has he retreated from his position? Seems like it was a clear expression of his belief. Stupid and naive it may be, but I think he really feels that way.

I believe Charles operates on the assumption that Obama has no core beliefs, just an appetite for power. Therefore he talked with a mouthful.

He has tap danced around his original statement since the debate. The problem is he was preaching to the choir. He know that was the answer that the kook fringe wanted to hear. The Hildabeast was smart enough to know that Obama’s answer came across as pathetically naive to the rest of the country and pounced on the softball that Obama served up.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.